rhino_chamfer_edges

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool chamfers edges and returns a dict with a command result; it does not disclose whether the original object is modified, whether a new object is created, how selection is consumed, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core operation. The Args/Returns structure is easy to scan, though the controller parameter mention adds slight noise since it does not appear in the input schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a simple schema and an output schema, so return-value details need not be repeated. However, the description does not explain how the edges are selected, whether the controller parameter is required, or what the chamfer does relative to the existing geometry. This leaves important invocation context missing, especially given the lack of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a distance parameter with no description, and the description's 'distance: Chamfer distance' adds little beyond a tautological restatement. It does not explain units, valid ranges, or the geometric meaning of the distance. It also mentions a controller argument that is absent from the schema, which can confuse an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Chamfer the selected edges of a polysurface or solid.' This clearly states the operation and target object type. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rhino_chamfer_surface and rhino_fillet_edges by focusing on edges of a polysurface/solid.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'selected edges' implies that edges must already be selected before calling the tool, which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as rhino_fillet_edges or rhino_chamfer_surface, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.